What is the general rule for showing just one card?

[psandman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In fact, any "house rule" that varies from commonly accepted practice is a very bad idea, no matter how well intentioned. All it does is create confusion among the players and the dealers.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Buy the Button" varied from commonly accepted practice, increases action, is a great new rule, and rarely causes confusion.

Anyway, one lead shift manager I recently spoke with said they broadened the classic show one show all rule (meaning show one person information (i.e., your cards), you must show all players the same information) to show one card, you must show both cards. His reasoning was that the practice was often being used to needle or tease an opponent who folded to a bet and wasn't good for the lower limit games, especially the lower limit no limit games.

I thought he had a reasonable point. What would be your counter-argument?

~ Rick

[/ QUOTE ]

The counter-argument is that this sort of needling is really gamesmanship and part of the game. If needling another player is to be prohibited, then you should also make illegal to show a player that you bluffed him out of a pot. After all isn't showing two cards in that situation also needling or teasing?

[Troll_Inc]

How about showing one or both cards while the play is still live? I saw someone bet then show one card while the only other player left in the hand was trying to decide whether to fold, call or raise.

My guess is that you can't show a card when the hand is still live. But no one at the table flinched.

(This was in a low buyin donkament in AC a year ago.)

[KenProspero]

[ QUOTE ]
His reasoning was that the practice was often being used to needle or tease an opponent who folded to a bet and wasn't good for the lower limit games, especially the lower limit no limit games.

I thought he had a reasonable point. What would be your counter-argument?

[/ QUOTE ]

ummmmmmmmmm .... it's poker, not old maid. Needling your opponent, within reason, or otherwise getting messing with his/her mind (if you're good enough to do this) is a part of the game. Shouldn't matter whether it's low limit or high stakes.

[soh538]

I think people who show one card, should have to show have to show the other card. I had a young woman doing that yesterday at Foxwoods at the 4-8, she would show the card that had nothing to do with the board. I don't know what she was trying to prove by doing that, and it slows the game down. The two people who did it the whole weekend were horrible players to begin with.

[KenProspero]

[ QUOTE ]
The two people who did it the whole weekend were horrible players to begin with.

[/ QUOTE ]

If they're horrible to begin with, let them show only one card as they simultaneously pat themselves on their backs for being clever and somehow fail to notice all of their chips inexorably creeping to your stack.

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
His reasoning was that the practice was often being used to needle or tease an opponent who folded to a bet and wasn't good for the lower limit games, especially the lower limit no limit games.

I thought he had a reasonable point. What would be your counter-argument?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see it as needling. Could you give an example of a player showing one card, in a way to offend/incite somebody?]

[/ QUOTE ]

Note that I was soliciting counter-arguments, and only thought the expansion of the rule was reasonable (when speaking to the shift manager) without thinking about it much prior to the conversation. That said, I've seen where it is used as a needle, but would be hard put to come up with an example right now. Perhaps others can.



[ QUOTE ]
I see cardrooms put up with the most vulgar trash talk. Of all the things they could do to stop needling, this seems the most misguided.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point, although putting a stop to the trash talk is a big nut to crack given the influence of TV.



[ QUOTE ]
The only reason I don't like the rule is, it slows down the game, in the same way as the IWTSTH does. Players who couldn't care less what that guy was holding, suddenly sit up in their chairs, and cry, "IWTSTH! He opened the door to my right to see it, so I want to see it! Dealer, stop the game, and turn up his cards!" THIS creates far more ill will at the table, than any alleged "needle" that showing a single card could ever create.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point again. Perhaps the better policy would be to move toward getting rid of the IWTSTH rule all together, as so many of us believe and have discussed on this forum!

Thanks for the input.

~ Rick

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
His reasoning was that the practice was often being used to needle or tease an opponent who folded to a bet and wasn't good for the lower limit games, especially the lower limit no limit games.

I thought he had a reasonable point. What would be your counter-argument?

[/ QUOTE ]

ummmmmmmmmm .... it's poker, not old maid. Needling your opponent, within reason, or otherwise getting messing with his/her mind (if you're good enough to do this) is a part of the game. Shouldn't matter whether it's low limit or high stakes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agree that needling is part of the game, with the emphasis on "within reason". I do think the lower limit or new players deserve some protection against the worse forms of needling, since this would be good for the game and good for business. Perhaps then this new expansion of the IWTSTH rule doesn't help much.

I also think you can and often should have different policies/rules for low versus high limit games, especially when it comes to no limit and the influx of new players. Troll_Inc in this thread has asked about showing one card when the hand is live. I have a few minutes left to answer his question before I leave for the day, but it will address an example of where low and high limit policies can be different.

Thanks for the feedback.

Regards,

Rick

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
How about showing one or both cards while the play is still live? I saw someone bet then show one card while the only other player left in the hand was trying to decide whether to fold, call or raise.

My guess is that you can't show a card when the hand is still live. But no one at the table flinched.

(This was in a low buyin donkament in AC a year ago.)

[/ QUOTE ]

The TDA tournament rules seem to be moving toward not allowing this (last time I looked, they said a penalty may be invoked). I'm not comfortable with the "may" part and not sure what the reasoning is (I'm in a rush so don't have time to research it right now).

The problem I have with showing one or both live cards (usually in order to get some type of tell against a lone opponent on the river when considering calling) is that showing is often accompanied with a "little bit" of forward motion, which the other player often inter perts as a fold. So they will sometimes table their hand against an arguably live hand giving the person who made the ploy a free shot. At higher limits players are usually good enough to know not to flinch, but at the lower limits I've often seen messy situations.

I've seen some cardrooms move toward rules that don't allow this practice, and they often apply it first to the lower limit games. This is an example where there may be some restrictions on gamesmanship at lower limits in order to protect new players, while allowing such gamesmanship at higher limits.

This has also been discussed in other threads on this forum, don't have time to search for links right now.

Regards,

Rick

[AKQJ10]

[ QUOTE ]
[Showing the card that missed the board] slows the game down.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know how you figure that. Maybe the woman in question thought she was the next Annie Duke.

I've started doing this mischievously on occasion, but only on occasion. At Foxwoods $1-2 I had J [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] J [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] and the pot, heads-up on the flop, was three baby spades. My aggressive opponent bet into me, I raised, he folded. I showed the spades one and mucked the clubs one, then poured fuel on the speculative conversation that ensued: "I could have had AJs, I could have had JTs, I could have had pocket jacks,..."

[bav]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not comfortable with the "may" part and not sure what the reasoning is (I'm in a rush so don't have time to research it right now).

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the "may" part of that penalty clause is seen as a way to avoid having to penalize someone for an accident, or perhaps in lesser events for ignorance. If you're moving a stack of chips and your sleeve catches a card and it flips, you shouldn't have to spend 15 minutes on the rail. If someone intentionally does this during Caesars $130 noon tournament, it's conceivable the TD might just want to warn folks that doing so is against the rules without penalizing the infringer. But if you intentionally show your cards during WSOP play, I'd hope they always invoke the penalty.